20100406 Late CorrespondenceINITIATIVE TESTIMONY - COUNCIL
APRIL . 2010
Forty years ago this month "Save Our Coastline" (SOC) was incorporated.
Its purpose was to gain Local Control of the then unincorporated portion of
the Palos Verdes Peninsula. At that time eight large developers controlled
38% of the value of the land in that area and essentially did whatever they
wanted. Their plan, if accomplished, would have more than doubled the
41,000 plus population to an estimated 96,000 in our city alone. After a 3 year
battle requiring changes in the law as to how cities were incorporated, over
80% of the registered voters overwhelmingly voted to create Rancho Palos
Verdes. Local control of development was now vested in the new city.
Two major goals were identified by a committee of over 250 citizens in the
Goals Report of 1974 which were reaffirmed in the Goals Report of 2002.
Those goals were: One, control development to achieve low density and two
the preservation of open space. The city, after some 37 years, is all but built
out with a growth of only just over 1,000 people. Recent acquisitions and low
density developments, with view corridors, have retained most of the open
space. We can proudly state that the goals are being achieved.
Today a petition is being circulated to put an initiative on the ballot to
overthrow our city's hard fought goal for local control. This initiative drive is
for the benefit of a single applicant. There would be no city oversight. The
city's only function would be ministerial. The city staff would be required to
issue the grading and building permits. The proposed development would
also include high density housing in a residential area. Both of these fly in the
RECEIVE=FA
�--�AND MARECORD AT HPage 1 of 2
C:/data/ken/civic/initiative 040610 COUNCIRTY CLERK 'rik!�(CGmCCITY CLERK �j
face of the city's goals. The award winning general plan and the development
code and ordinances designed to implement these goals would all be set aside.
Should this succeed, others could be encouraged to do the same. You could
have some 211 "motel 6 units" called casitas in our city, an amusement venue
in a neighborhood or high density development adjacent to our city creating a
traffic nightmare. These have been proposed in the recent past and denied.
This threat cannot go unchallenged. Therefore, forty years since the original
SOC was incorporated, Save Our City (SOC III) is being incorporated to take
on this challenge to local control. Its sole purpose is to educate our voters on
the process of petitioning for an initiative and the implications of
circumventing city control of development. SOC III will identify the process
to remove a signature for those who realize the implications and wish to
remove their signature. Should the required qualifying signatures not be
obtained, we would avoid the cost of an election that can be as much as
$80,000 of our tax dollars. We must not open Pandora's Box with its
implications to our city's future.
In the coming months, SOC III will be presenting more detailed information.
Please watch your newspapers, your local television stations, and especially
SOC III mailings. We will be announcing a membership program in the near
future. Become a part of the effort to "Save Our City" as you did 40 years
ago.
Page 2 of 2
C:/data/ken/civic/initiative 040610
FIGLM 2 - Rancho Palos Verdes and Rollin(f Hi27 Is
Landslide.Areas
AND MADE A PART OFT nE RE RD AT
- 5 -COUNCIL MEETING OF
OFFICE OFTHE C Y GLE K
CARLA MORREALE, CITY CLERK
r[,hp _L Z"
."-t niA " p
�1,500R. fl
taQ�tft fay.
of the uzzle
I3.f Gerd site
flpper; tart; location
Orrll?`I , srnrr<::
litC �'kP,+
PENINSULA: Deal for Rancho Palos Verdes and a v� .t �OS Three Porfuge
r se
local land conservancy have Sisters Bend
nearly 200 acres of completed the complex, � _Y i 4 r
open space links resi repeatedly delayed $6.5 mil- p®r7a�ed
lion purchase of almost 200 parcel
of naturereserve.
� acres of open space known as k•, ��_� Forrestal
the Upper FiIiorum. Nt'orranea <fi ' FlCo%Ga
By Melissa gamer The agreement, finalized
Staff Writer last week, slots into plrice'a m �.,,
It took more than two missing piece of land that lssl�i link
decades of coaxing, coddling, bridges previously acquired In a deal more than 20 years in the making, Rant
ho Palos
wheedling, "needling, lawyer- city nature reserves, linking a Verdes and the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy have
ing and paper pushing to get 'broad expanse of more than completed the acquisition of 191 acres of land considered a
the deal done. 950 acres that stretch across crucial "missing link."
the southern face of the Palos
Now, prompted by an unfal Verdes Peninsula. Note; Green shaded areas represent preserves
tering dream, the puzzle is LAND Al2 � � �
finally complete.
I
..... . ....
x
NR
U
0
r7 M
1-71U
,,
Upper r;Site j
o Palos Verdes and a
Filibrurn location I
R 0
A conservancy have
tjRtws Three po"u gese
Sisters Bend
:d complex, the comp
ly delayed $6.5 mil-
-hase of almost 200
Donated
)pen space known as
Parcel
Forrestal
,r Filiorum.
At�fbnv
gre ement, finalized
C ve
slots into place'a
piece of land that
Missing link
previously acquired
In a deal more than 20 years in the making, Rancho Palos
re reserves, linking a
Verdes and the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy have
panse of more than
completed the acquisition of 191 acres of land considered a
3 that stretch across
crucial "missing link."
face of the Palos
,ern
aninsula.
Note: Green shaded areas represent preserves
LAND Al2
a Oua&- 7.a
x
NR
U
0
L Awk -, .
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: CITY CLERK
DATE: APRIL 6, 2010
SUBJECT: ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO
AGENDA
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material presented
for tonight's meeting:
Item No. Description of Material
5 Answers to questions posed by Mayor Wolowicz
6 Email exchange between Staff, Mayor Wolowicz and Madeline Ryan
9 Answers to questions posed by Mayor Wolowicz
10 Answers to questions posed by Mayor Wolowicz
Respectfully submitted,
Carla Morreale
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Carolynn Petru
FROM:
Steve Wolowicz
CC:
Carolyn Lehr
DATE:
April 6, 2010
SUBJECT:
cc meeting 4-6-10 item #5 crossing guard contract
QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS:
Carolyn,
One brief question.
Steve
Just to confirm — the addition of costs is only to extend this contract for the 2010-
2011 School year, there are no other increases in terms of additional guards,
rates, or other costs?
Staff response: That is correct. All City Management is not proposing to increase
its hourly rate for 2010-2011 and there are no changes in service levels being
contemplated at this time.
Page 1 of 1 5
C:\Documents and Settings\carlam\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK451\20100406_Response to Wolowic's Questions—Crossing Guard Contract.doc 04/06/101:2£
From: Ray Holland [rayh@rpv.com]
Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 7:29 PM
To: 'Steve Wolowicz'
Cc: 'Carla Morreale; carolynn@rpv.com; 'Carolyn Lehr'
Subject: RE: CC Agenda April 6 - Item No. 6c
Hi Steve,
Will do. Thanks.
Ray
Ray Holland
Director of Public Works
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-5391
rayh@rpv.com
310-544-5252
Fax 310-544-5292
From: Steve Wolowicz [mailto:stevew@rpv.com]
Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 7:15 PM
To: 'Ray Holland'
Subject: RE: CC Agenda April 6 - Item No. 6c
Ray,
Thanks for the follow-up and the information
be included distributed to all of the council.
Thanks,
Steve
Steve Wolowicz
Mayor
Rancho Palos Verdes
Phone 310-378-9911
email -- stevew@rpv.com
Pagel of 3
I suggest that your email message
From: Ray Holland [mailto:rayh@rpv.com]
Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 5:25 PM
To: 'Steve Wolowicz'; 'Joel Rojas'
Cc: 'Carolyn Lehr'; tomo@rpv.com; 'Nicole Jules'; 'Ron Dragoo'; 'Carla Morreale'; carolynn@rpv.com
Subject: RE: CC Agenda April 6 - Item No. 6c
Hi Steve,
I asked staff to investigate Ms. Ryan's concerns. The work done by the contractor was within the requirements of
the contract. None -the -less, we agree that some additional work needs to be done to address the concerns of
Ms. Ryan. Thus we are proceeding to have the additional work completed as soon possible.
4/6/2010
Page 2 of 3
Since the contractor performed all the work within the requirements of the contract we continue to recommend
that Council approve the NOC at tomorrow's meeting. Staff will see that the additional work is handled as soon
as possible and as appropriate.
Thanks.
Ray
Ray Holland
Director of Public Works
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-5391
rayh@rpv.com
310-544-5252
Fax 310-544-5292
From: Steve Wolowicz [mailto:stevew@rpv.com]
Sent: Sunday, April 04, 2010 11:18 AM
To: 'Ray Holland'; 'Joel Rojas'
Cc: Carolyn Lehr
Subject: FW: CC Agenda April 6 - Item No. 6
Please advise us as to the validity of this assertion. If it is true, what action by the
City or Council is appropriate?
Thanks,
Steve
Steve Wolowicz
Mayor
Rancho Palos Verdes
Phone 310-378-9911
email -- stevew@rpv.com
From: Madeline Ryan [mailto:pvpasofino@yahoo.com]
Sent: Sunday, April 04, 2010 9:14 AM
To: Steve Wolowicz; Tom Long; Douglas Stern; Anthony Mizetich; brian campbell
Subject: CC Agenda April 6 - Item No. 6
Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers
As suggested by Councilmember Long I am writing you to object to the release of retention monies to S.
P. Pazargad for the Palos Verdes Drive East Storm Drain Catch Basin Improvements (Item 46 on the CC
Agenda for April 6).
On March 18th and 20th, I inquired to Carolyn Lehr, Public Works and Councilman Long about the City
allowing the spreading of excavation spoils by the contractor on the public right-of-way at Headland
Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East. I know it's a common practice to allow a contractor to stage and
stockpile materials, but upon completion of the job this area should have been raked clean of any debris.
In addition, I spoke to the consultant on this project the very day this was happening and he said, 'he
would look into it'.
Prior to the start of this work the trail had a 1/4" minus surface. What has been spread by the contractor
4/6/2010
Page 3 of 3
would not be allowed by any trail specification. Not only is this area now unsightly, it is hazardous to
any walker or equestrian because of the potential of twisting an ankle on the now rocky surface. I now
use the traffic lane to by-pass this area with my horses or when walking my dog, stepping back onto the
trail once I piss the rocky terrain.
I expect the City to withhold this Contractor's retention monies until he removes the excavation spoils
which have created a public hazard.
Thank you.
Madeline Ryan
28328 Palos Verdes Drive East
RPV
"May the Trails be with you" ... Madeline
4/6/2010
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Tom Odom and Katie Howe
FROM:
Steve Wolowicz
CC:
Carolyn Lehr
DATE:
April 6, 2010
SUBJECT:
CC meeting 4-6-10 item #9 MRCA Rangers
QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS:
Tom and Katie,
Please help me with a few questions on this item.
Thanks,
Steve
1. The composite billing rate appears unchanged — the same rate is the
same for 40 hours as for 30 hours, so the increase is only for the
additional 10 hours per week?
Staff answer: That is correct. The increase in hours is being
recommended for additional coverage/patrols in the Preserve.
2. Is it common for contract services to pay for the commuting time (such as
with the Sheriff, the city attorney, inspectors, etc.)?
Staff answer: It is a common practice for consultants, attorneys, etc. to
cover travel time in most cases. Due to Rancho Palos Verdes' geographic
location, the average commute time for the MRCA rangers from another
worksite would exceed the 30 minute (each way) travel time which was
negotiated by staff.
3. 1 think that Staff has looked before, but I would like to confirm — there are
no Federal, state or County grants that we can apply for recreation areas
or for additional police protection?
Staff answer: Last year staff applied for and received a JAG grant as part
of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in the amount of
$18,000. Staff continues to work with the City's contracted grant
consultant, Blais and Associates, to search for a number of grants for the
City, including grants that would assist in covering ranger services.
Page 1 of 1
C:\WINNT\Profiles\katieh\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Fi1es\0LK13D\cc meeting 2010 04-06 #9 ranger fees answered (2).doc 04/06/10 3:47 P
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Kathryn Downs and Jane Lin
FROM:
Steve Wolowicz
CC:
Dennis McLean Carolyn Lehr
DATE:
April 6, 2010
SUBJECT:
cc meeting 4-6-10 item #10 — cash balances
QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS:
Kathryn and Jane,
Please help with answers to these two questions.
Thanks,
Steve
Proposition A Funds. Given the decrease in Prop A fund income, does
Staff foresee the likelihood of a shortfall in this fund and the possible need
for the Council to consider either reducing the contributions to the PVPTA
and Max bus or making transfers from the General Fund? If so, should we
arrange a meeting with these agencies and, or add this to a future Council
meeting?
Reply from Dennis McLean:
Staff is concerned about the possibility that future funding requests from PVPTA
and MAX may exceed transit revenue resulting in a funding shortfall as early as
FY10-11. Staff is currently gathering additional information (i.e. rider boarding
statistics, route frequency, capital and operating expectations) to enable
evaluation of the issues prior to making a recommendation to the City Council on
or before the Budget Workshop scheduled for May 22, 2010. Alternatives may
include a reduction of the City's contribution, operational changes or providing a
subsidy from the General fund.
2. Affordable Housing in Lieu Fund. Now that we have exhausted the cash in
this fund are there any potential demands in the near future from this
fund? If so, any recommendations for action?
Reply from Greg Pfost and Dennis McLean:
At this time the answer is no as we have no funds in this account and no
"demands" or expected expenditures. However, in the distant future, staff
expects that there will be a contribution to the in -lieu fund account by the
Highridge Condominium project, which was conditioned to pay the equivalent of
one unit (approximately $222,000). The timing and/or likelihood of the project is
Page 1 of 2
Z:\CASHOTreasurees Report\FY2009-20 1 0\20100406 MI.. reply_Cash balance .doc
04/ :46 PM
unknown; therefore, Finance & IT staff has excluded the $222,000 from the
working draft of the 2010 Five -Year Financial Model at this time.
The condition requires payment when a certain percentage of units within the
development have been sold. Since this project has not even started
construction, the payment of this fee will be in the distant future. Since $222,000
does not go to far in developing/providing for affordable units, Staff anticipates
that if and when these funds are submitted they will not be spent until we can
pool them with other funds that we would collect annually through our 20% RDA
set-aside funds. Once enough funds are pooled together, then Staff would
approach the Council on ways to spend them on affordable housing
opportunities, Staff estimates that this would not occur for another 5-10 years.
Page 2 of 2
Z:\CASHMTreasurer's Report\FY2009-2010\20100406_Wolo% cz Cash balance report.
04/06/10 3:46 PM
LI
aRk, -'. RANCHO PALOS VERDES
TO:
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM:
CITY CLERK
DATE:
APRIL 6, 2010
SUBJECT: ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO
AGENDA
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material received
through Monday afternoon for the Tuesday, April 6, 2010 City Council meeting:
Item No. Description of Material
14 Emails from the following: Chris Noshad; Email exchange between Mayor
Pro Tem Long and Rick Anchan; Email exchange between Mayor Pro
Tem Long and Patrick Vilicich; Jim Gordon; Email exchange between
Councilman Stern and Jorg and Anke Raue; and Tania Noshad.
Respectfully submitted,
0 If
Carla Morreale
From: Chris_Noshad@Toyota.com
Sent: Friday, April 02, 2010 1:10 PM
To: cc@RPV.com
Cc: c.noshad@gmail.com
Subject: Marymount Collage Expansion
Dear RPV City Council,.
I am a RPV resident, living with my wife and two daughters very close to the Marymount
collage. We chose this residential area because of its low density living code and the
lack of traffic generating businesses
surrounding this small community. We paid a top dollar just for that. I
am frustrated by constant reading and hearing the expansion plans of this for profit
institution. If the City approve the MMC expansion, I will be very much concern about
safety and future of my daughters. Just go to any collage within US and see the housing
around it. I am sure they did not begin in that manner. They all are rental run down
properties with
Traffic, Drugs and Alcohol you name it, all offered in a bundle. We say
NO to this expansion, period.
Regards,
Chris Noshad
c.noshad@gmail.com
1
From: Tom Long [mailto:tomlong@palosverdes.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2010 1:48 PM
To: anchanrj@cox.net
Cc: clehr@rpv.com; carolynn@rpv.com; joelr@rpv.com
Subject: Re: Marymount
Dear Rick, While I am sure you speak for a lot of your neighborhood, I suspect many in
this city disagree with you. One by one your "valid issues" were carefully addressed by
professional planners, geologists and traffic consultants. And, with all due respect, none
of them warranted denying Marymount the right to modernize its decades old campus.
The only substantive complaint you make below seems quite unwarranted. The
enrollment of the college is the same and with 120 more parking spaces there will be
fewer cars on the street blocking any evacuation that may be necessary. In any event, in
the city's entire history I believe only one home (and no lives) have been lost to brush
fires of the type about which you are concerned. I live in a neighborhood with 3 schools.
The lights of Chadwick shine into my master bedroom. The noise from Peninsula High
wafts into my yard. The traffic of hundreds of parents in SUVs dropping off their
children at Soleado clogs my local streets (and would make evacuation difficult at some
times of the day). And personally I have no children. I could take an attitude like yours
and bitterly complain bitterly about all of these things. But they are just little things that
come with living in an urban area. We all need to just be a little more respectful of one
another and a little more capable of seeing differing points of view. Staff, please include
this in late correspondence for our next meeting. Tom Long Mayor Pro Tem, Rancho
Palos Verdes
-----Original Message -----
From:
Sent 4/1/2010 12:42:07 PM
To: stevew@rpv.com, tom.long@rpv.com, Douglas.Stem@rpv.com,
Anthony.Misetich@rpv.com, Brian.Campbell@rpv.com
Subject: You Gutless Wonders
Thanks for screwing your tax paying constituents by giving Marymount permission for
their expansion. I cannot believe that you continued to ignore the valid issues that those
of us who lived near this misplaced institution brought to your attention.
How can you ignore each of the very valid points. I hope that when we next have a major
fire, and those of us living across the street cannot get up or down RVP East due to
additional traffic, that the lives lost because of your decision haunt you for the rest of
your lives. Or the slides that occur due to EIGHT YEARS of construction impact you like
they will us. Or the additional traffic and noise or ...... you have had them all presented
Please rest assured that those of us in the neighborhood will now take whatever legal
action is available to us, including court action. Maybe there we can find some
community leaders who won't give into the special interest group of Marymount.
To councilman Campbell and Misetich. rest assured we will do everything possible to
make certain you are one term councilmen.
You don't represent the tax paying voters of this community. How much did your
campaign funds get from hidden Marymount sources.
Unbelievable. You exemplify what is wrong with our political system at all levels where
none of you are willing to tackle a controversial issue.
Rick Anchan
Page 1 of 2
From: Patrick Vilicich [pvwatch@pacbell.net]
Sent: Friday, April 02, 2010 4:46 PM
To: Cathy Vilicich
Cc: cc@rpv.com; joelr@rpv.com; clehr@rpv.com
Subject: Re: Tom Long /soccer balls
Dear Councilman Long,
Your response to my email begs the question, who are you looking out for here ?
Patrick Vilicich
On Apr 2, 2010, at 4:19 PM, Cathy Vilicich wrote:
Begin forwarded message:
From: 'Tom Long" <tomlong(@palosverdes.com>
Date: April 2, 2010 7:00:38 PM PDT
To: "Cathy Vilicich" <shimiv(a)pacbell.net>
Cc: <clehr@rpv.com>, <ioelr@rpvcom>
Subject: Re: Tom Long /soccer balls
Dear Patrick, I know people say that but there are hundreds of athletic fields
near streets throughout the nation and I have done a Google search to see if
there are any reports of soccer balls causing accidents and it comes back with
nothing. I drive 56 miles round trip to downtown LA every day on high speed
freeways. I have been hit by all sorts of debris and rocks and cement, etc. and
had my windshield craked and yet I have always managed to stay in my lane
and I am not a good driver. But if we are to have ZERO tolerance for risk then
yes, we cannot allow Marymount to have a soccer field. We had also better
ban all cats and dogs from being outdoors and take steps to trap and kill all
wildlife such as squirrels, racoons, opposoms, etc, because any one of them
running into the street could also cause an accident and most such animals
weigh more than a soccer ball. In sum, I feel that drivers are responsible for
being attentive to their surroundings and that the problem with a sitation of
panic because of a 10 ounce soccer ball hitting a car is a problem with the
driver and not the soccer ball. We have so many real dangers in the community
that are much more serious and not addressed (such as poor young and old
drivers who should not have licenses) that I just cannot see this probem as
being serious enough to deny a property owner its rights. All that being said, I
do hope we get a median on PV Drive East in that area because I think it will
enhance safety. That was a good idea Councilman Campbell brought forward.
Tom Long Mayor Pro Tem, Rancho Palos Verdes.
-----Original Message -----
From: "Cathy Vilicich"
Sent 4/2/2010 9:45:25 AM ------
4/2/2010
To: cc@rpv.com
Subject: Tom Long /soccer balls
Dear Council Members,
With respect to Councilman Long's quote in today's Daily Breeze
regarding "someone panicking if they get hit by a soccer ball " ,
building a soccer field in the location Marymount wants to build is
an accident waiting to happen. Count on it.
Patrick Vilicich
4/2/2010
Page 2 of 2
Page 1 of 2
From:
bubba32@cox.net
Sent:
Saturday, April 03, 2010 1:03 PM
To:
cc@rpv.com
Cc:
aram@rpv.com
Subject:
More Marymount Lies Today
Attachments: TRIP TABLE AND PARKING IMPACTS MAR 30 10[1].doc
All
Today I received a Marymountplan Flier
"What does Common sense Tell you?"
"That if you take 250 students, who otherwise have to drive up and down Palos Verdes
Drive East, several times a day to attend classes, and put them on campus in student
housing, there will be less traffic."
"And wouldn't fewer cars on our street make our neighborhood safer?"
YES. That is what common sense, as well as the City's independent traffic study tells
us."
PLEASE UNDERSTAND THAT IS THE BIG LIE! THE BIG LIE IS A
FALSEHOOD, TOLD OFTEN ENOUGH, GAINS THE PERCEPTION OF TRUTH!
Please see DEIR Tables 5.3-29 and 5.3-31 which show that Traffic is increased by 1,561 and
1,478 trips Weekdays and Saturdays respectively, not reduced by 250 students housed on -
campus!
The average number of Weekday Trips observed - 658 students and 215 Faculty/Staff was
2,439 daily trips (Traffic Appendix page 162). Add in the "missing" 135 students to the
maximum allowed student enrollment (793) and the average Weekday number of trips is
2,816 trips.. The INCREASE IN TRAFFIC AS SHOWN IN THE CITY'S
INDEPENDENT TRAFFIC STUDY IS 55%! (+19561 / 29816= +55%). THIS IS THE
FINDING THAT IS PRODUCED WITH 250 ON -CAMPUS STUDENTS IN RESIDENCE
HALLS by the Independent Traffic Study Section 5.3.
The Traffic INCREASE IS EVEN MORE DRAMATIC ON WEEKENDS because the
Study, Table 5.3-31 shows an increase in Saturday Traffic of 1,478 trips which more
than doubles the existing Saturday Traffic from 949 trips to 2,427 trips, virtually the
same number of observed weekday trips at the College driveway with only 658 students.
Sunday Trips are not shown in the Analysis, but were observed to be 1,079 trips, similar to
4/5/2010 1
Page 2 of 2
Saturday. Thus, to the extent that Saturday's added trip findings are similar to the
Saturday increase with 250 on -campus students, there will be a 24/7 increase in Traffic
well above 55%. This is certainly an "Inconvenient Truth!"
THE College Parking situation is not abated but worsened because the Initiative states
that the College plans to allow the addition of 125 vehicles to park on campus 24/7 which
makes this the largest full-time parking lot on the hill. The Independent City Analysis
found that the existing parking space shortfall was 292 spaces in Table 3.3-36. That is
simply unacceptable and an impact that the College has not and wishes not to acknowledge.
The most recent Appendix D (EIR) Traffic & Parking study found that there was only 1
extra parking space left with 463 spaces but did not count the new 125 vehicles (Initiative)
that overwhelms the added 120 spaces planned. The overall result is a further shortfall of
parking beyond that included in findings of these Traffic studies which projects even more
parking demand based on the new Bachelor 4 -year program. Such students require a parking
"multiplier" of 1.47 beyond that of the existing AA students (543) that remain.
THE STATEMENTS AND TV ADVERTISING BY THE COLLEGE TO ENCOURAGE
RESIDENTS TO SIGN THEIR PETITION ARE FALSE - DECEPTIVE- MISLEADING
AND UNTRUE. SUCH COLLEGE CLAIMS ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY
EVIDENCE CONTAINED IN THE CITY'S INDEPENDENT TRAFFIC STUDY. THIS IS
THE "BIG LIE" TECHNIQUE IN ACTION.
THIS IS AN EGREGIOUS AND OUTRAGEOUS LIE THAT NEEDS IMMEDIATE
ATTENTION AND WITHDRAW EL BY THIS RECKLESS COLLEGE
ADMINISTRATION.
JIM GORDON
4/5/2010
APPENDIX D
2YR — 4 YR AFFECTS RESPECTING TRAFFIC TRIPS
DATE
EVENT
CALCULATION
COMMENT
11/2005
MM 24 — HOUR DRIVEWAY
11115 - 1211 — 2005 SURVEYS
ESTABLISH A BASELINE TO
COUNT
4 WEEKDAYS AVG = 2,439
MEASURE THE EFFECTS OF THE
PROJECT
Based on 658 students + 215
Faculty & Staff
NOT USED — "NOT CONSIDERED
COMPREHENSIVE... did not
"missing" 135 students
include traffic associated with
represent 377 more daily
college vehicles parked on
trips (pro rata)
adjacent streets.
Total with 793 students & 215
Therefore, this data was not
Faculty/Staff = 2,816 Daily
included in the analysis"
trips: (2,237 Peak Hrs)
Parking Survey shows "missed"
Trip Distribution: 2,237 Peak,
traffic ranges from + 9% to 14.5%
517 off Peak (79% Peak)
(if added would increase Daily
ITE 550 University trip factor
Trips to 3,102)
produces only 873 Peak
trips, 2,415 Total (all students
ITE factors not representative
+ Faculty -1,015persons)
2008
DEIR
Increase in trips + 1,561:
Project adds to existing traffic
+55% with dorms - 4,377
counts —with dorms by 55%
Total Daily Trips
2009
FEIR
Increase in trips + 1,636;
Project adds to existing Traffic
+58% without dorms - 4,452
counts —no dorms by +58%
Total Daily Trips
2010
APPENDIX D
Daily Trips increase + 1,931
Proiect adds to existing Traffic —no
dorms by 68% (222 Faculty/Staff +
4,747 Total Daily trips +68%
without dorms, 2yr & 4yr
program
793 students - 543 Lower division,
250 upper division)
DATE EVENT CALCULATION
COMMENT
Adding staff of 215 =1,008 on
Adding staff of 215 = 1,008 on
campus.
Utilizing a baseline of 2,439 + 1,008
(for 658 students) + 135 students
more (793) =19
RBF concludes that there's no
impact between 2 yr vs. 4 yr
The traffic counts suggest
otherwise had the baseline been
used
AND with 658 students in 2005
THERE WAS PARKING ON PVE,
CREST, ETC.
THE STREET PARKING
INCREASED FROM THEN TO NOW
HOW MUCH MORE STREET
PARKING BE ADDED WHEN THE
PUBLIC IS COUNTED ??
2
From:
Douglas Stern [douglas.w.stern@gmail.com]
Sent:
Monday, April 05, 2010 1:46 PM
To:
Raue, Anke
Cc:
cc@rpv.com
Subject:
Re: Marymount
Unfortunately, the city may not do anything to try to inuence the election. It us only
the public that can weigh in.
Douglas W. Stern
On Apr 5, 2010, at 9:00 PM, "Raue, Anke" <ankeraue@cox.net> wrote:
> Honorable City Council Members,
> Although I am personally neutral on the Marymount expansion plans, we
> think the City should have made a serious effort in the news media to
> point out the cost of a special election!
> We believe a lot of people dont think of that and they may not have
> signed the petition then!
> Sincerely
> Jorg and Anke Raue
> 28813 Rothrock Dr.
> R.P.V.
Page 1 of 1
From: Tania Noshad [tania.noshad@gmaiI.com]
Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 6:14 AM
To: cc@rpv.com
Subject: Re. Marymount Collage
Dear RPV City Council,
I am a RPV resident, living with my wife and two daughters very close to
the Marymount collage. We chose this residential area because of its low
density living code and the lack of traffic generating businesses
surrounding this small community. We paid a top dollar just for that. I
am frustrated by constant reading and hearing the expansion plans of this
for profit institution. If the City approve the MMC expansion, I will be
very much concern about safety and future of my daughters. Just go to any
collage within US and see the housing around it. I am sure they did not
begin in that manner. They all are rental run down properties with
Traffic, Drugs and Alcohol you name it, all offered in a bundle. We say
NO to this expansion, period.
Regards
TN
4/5/2010